girlgeniusfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Help Wanted - Mad Pages
I'm posting here in hopes of soliciting help. Most pages under Category:Mad are in need of tending. They need: * Organization. These pages should be somewhat uniform and easy to read. * Theories cleaned up. Copyediting, basically. See Forum:Writing for a Mad Page for more details on this. * Links added. This is the big job. Mad pages should have links to forum topics, user pages, and blog posts on that subject, as well as links to mad pages on related subjects. Of course, if anyone has ideas, or wants to leap in and do this... :D — m (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) --Did leaping-- I started. I have done several, to at least put the theory support and the theory policy in. I thought I saw at some point a theory-non-support box... Maybe I'm crazy. I've got no problem just running through and tacking in the support/policy templates but I'll fully admit I'm not reading the pages so much as just wanting to get the templates in... Don't know if this will mess up some balance. Let me know if I should continue doing this or not please -- Axi 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :I noticed! Thank you for jumping in. The reason I haven't done anything is because I've just held off until the question of moving is settled. I feel like I'm in limbo, kinda. — m (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :Axi and Corgi - oh my god. You guys are awesome. Have my babies. — m (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC) ::It seems to me the main problem with the Mad pages is that occasionally, instead of being used in the way they're intended - as semi-formal presentations of alternative interpretations not solid enough for the main page - they're turning into forum pages for debates related to the page topic. ::One can go around cleaning this up, but then where would the existing content be put? ::I don't think it's appropriate simply to delete it, even if it's wrong for the page it's on. So in the case of the Mad page for Zola, I moved it to the Discussion page for the Mad page. But that's wrong too. Discussion pages are for discussion about the page, not the topic of the page. ::Here is my idea of how to deal with this properly, to address the felt need that's leading to the problem. ::Basically, what's wrong is simply that Forum:Fan Theories is just too awkward to use; experienced users of this wiki know where to find it, but it's not organized, it's just a long list of individual theories. ::We are using /Mad subsidiary pages instead of the Mad: namespace which we had created for us... and that Zarchne would like to do something with. Maybe the existing Mad pages should be in the Mad namespace, but while I was competent at one time to change the appropriate templates to facilitate such a move, it was decided at the time this was last considered not to do this, and the reasons for that are doubtless still valid. ::I'm noting that because what I'm suggesting now may be suggesting perpetuating a mistake. ::Since people want a forum page for fan theories about Klaus hanging off the main page for Klaus, a forum page for fan theories about Zola hanging off the main page for Zola, and so on... let's give them one. In other words, Klaus Wulfenbach, Klaus Wulfenbach/Mad, and Klaus Wulfenbach/Forum. With a Has-Forum template. ::This way, we avoid interference with the existing Forum: namespace, we parallel our existing practice, and we give people what they want - or ourselves a place to move discussion that is erroneously placed on the Mad page or the main page. --Quadibloc 19:33, October 24, 2009 (UTC) Sane pages? I am noticing that many of the Mad pages were written just like the forums were written. People were clearly having fun cutting loose in a way they could not on the canonically correct base page. This served as an outlet. Coming back and seeing the debate format imposed on these discussions seems to me wrong especially in some cases. Better would be to move the discussions into forum space. The editing attempts to sanitize this is fighting against the meaning of the word Mad. What do you think of letting the Mad pages be for free ranging forum like discussions. Then, if a theory is intriguing enough to vote on and debate, extract it from the madness and put in another page (/Sane possibly or /Spec). The point is what is happening now is inhibiting interaction and fun rather than promoting it. --Rej ¤¤? 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :That's because that's not what the Mad pages are for. They're just to collect all the theories and things that don't go in the main article. Discussion goes on forums and on blog posts. Please see this forum post. Oh, and Girl Genius:Speculation. I hope that clears things up. — m (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ::What if we did something like I did for Lucrezia Mongfish/Mad, where the Mad page contains: :::# A summary of the Forum discussion :::# List of supporters :::# Link to the Forum discussion :::# Lists of other discussions related to the Mad main subject ::Then there's freedom to have the discussion, but people who just want to know the conspiracy and ideas do not have to read through the entire discussion. -- Axi 22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ::: Axi, that looks very nice - good linkwork. -- Corgi 05:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Hi m, the problem that exists is between theory and practice. The editing that Axi is doing are to Mad pages written in Forum page format. Some so heavily interacted with that extracting the theories from the discussions will be a thankless task. IMO a waste of time and effort. The pages deserve to be treated as forums and either moved to forum space or left as they are (assuming Mad pages are repurposed to forum like free for alls). I am not the only one who has remarked you are fighting the language. Mad will not be understood to mean Theories as you wish. People will use it to jump the restrictions of the main page. If you insist on keeping :MainPage/Mad to mean your theory format then lets start the conventions that :Forum:/Mad/MainPage will be the wild discussion about the main page. Then set up templates to direct people to the forums for discussion and the main subspace for what you are trying to do with :MainPage/Mad. Or combine that suggestion with putting the theory format into :MainPage/Theory or :MainPage/Sane --Rej ¤¤? 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) : The theory is that the Mad pages will be for theories and such that don't belong on the main page. The practice is that they are a bit of a mix of the "ideal" mad and of forums discussing the topic. I would say that this is in part because it's allowed to be. However, if a new rule is created and enforced that mad pages are for mad theories only, and anything that looks like discussion will be restated as a theory or moved to a forum, then I suspect that people will go along with it. However, the habit is not there yet, so someone (or several someones) will need to monitor the mad pages to make sure they stay as theories. (Now, if you're arguing that people can't be trained out of old habits and into new ones, that's a different matter.) : I would not have multiple forums for the main page (and if you have a :Forum:/Mad/MainPage , then I think you'll need to allow for :Forum:/MainPage ). I would have one forum for the MainPage, and if it spawned anything interesting, that theory or comment or whatever would then go into the appropriate page. Because otherwise, I suspect that the practice will be that the Mad forum will also spawn mainpage-worthy references and the mainpage forum will spawn mad-worthy theories. Effective overlap, and again, a blurring of boundaries. I'm not sure what the point would be for :MainPage/Sane - how would that differ from :MainPage? : I'd like to see some consistency in the Mad pages, but I also am well aware that some things are not going to be easy to slice and dice into theories. I'll gladly help with the minioning, but I'd like to minimize the aggravation to all concerned. -- Brassica 00:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :: Hi, Brassica. Thanks for chiming in. :: :MainPage/Mad is just the wrong name for a structured theories page. Because the assumption (on contributers part) is that the page is for wild speculation and discussion of that speculation. So another name is needed. As a newbie I made that assumption when I wanted to comment on Geisterdamen and started a Forum like page. At the time I wasn't aware of how to use forums. Later it was edited into theory debate format. I am not overjoyed with that result. I would rather have seen it moved to forum space. Others have done the same. :: :MainPage/Theories would be a reasonable, staid choice to replace it. :MainPage/Sane is a play on :MainPage/Mad but a good name replacement also IMO. Your suggestion for :Forum:MainPage for discussion works as well as (maybe better) than my suggestion of :Forum:Mad/MainPage. I was trying to keep the mad notion in the forum description for traditions sake. :: I think it is rather important to ease away from trying to name something "Mad" and then structure it. The cognitive dissonance is too great. --Rej ¤¤? 02:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::: Zarchne actually started the Mad pages because he wanted to present some wilder ideas and extrapolation that didn't belong in articles. It was going to be a full namespace (like User, for example) but the code freaked out and it had to be removed. Mad as in Mad Science. Not Mad Meandering About Conversationally. Science has structure, method and formal procedure, as I'm sure we're all aware. ::: The fact that people subsequently started posting forum-style in the pages did not and DOES not make it right or better, it makes it falling out of approved in-house style. If people don't read the Manual of Style, the sidebars, the Watercooler forum posts, ad nauseaum, there's little we can do other than clean up after them, and sometimes those of us wishing to tidy up don't have the time, especially when people just keep doing whatever they feel like with no consideration for the other editors. ::: For the fourth time: Conversational discussion goes in the FORUMS. We have one location for FORUM PAGES oddly enough named Forums. Theories, extrapolations and W.A.G. go on MAD pages, stated in formal presentation language. Discussion of Mad pages goes in the FORUMS. ::: I really do not see why we have to keep repeating ourselves, and by 'we' I mean four different other editors saying the same bloody thing over and over. -- Corgi 05:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::: I absolutely agree. But I don't think the approach of simply bonking people over the head and saying "Bad!" is going to be productive and fix it. This phenomenon is a symptom of a problem. Something is missing that people feel a need for. What's wrong is that you can't easily connect, from the wiki entry for Klaus Wulfenbach, for example, to the threads in Forum:Fan Theories which discuss theories about Klaus. :::: Either a lot of editors put in 'way more effort keeping a tight rein on these pages than anyone wants to, or we fix the problem by giving people what they want. So, since Forum:Fan Theories isn't working for a lot of newer wiki users... how about Klaus Wulfenbach/Forum in addition to Klaus Wulfenbach/Mad... and so on? --Quadibloc 19:38, October 24, 2009 (UTC) :::: Also, I'd be interested in hearing more about how "the code freaked out" when the Mad pages were originally put in the Mad: namespace instead of as /Mad supplementary pages. I remember earlier that an attempt to move them from /Mad to :Mad was abandoned, but I had thought at the time it was chiefly out of deference to the person who did the templates for them. If there is a real technical issue, this is important, because someone is now setting up templates for the /Forum pages as Forum:.../Forum. He's also said something about the Klaus Defense League which really confuses me. --Quadibloc 02:34, October 25, 2009 (UTC) ::::: Poor choice on my part. I was trying to indicate m, Corgi and company. Used an imprecise brush. --Rej 03:04, October 25, 2009 (UTC) (not sure which level to put this on now) For me... Forum's are forums--they are for discussion; talk pages are also for discussions. Non-forums are for articles, and relative information. Mad--to me--sounds like crazy speculation, but still needs the support of the debate in a related, but separate page. Linking the discussion to the summary is awesome because i'd like to know what spurred it on. Maybe that's 'cause I'm a chemist... (now imagine what the files on my computer are sorted like)-- Axi 04:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::: Hi Corgi, The first rule is to have fun with this stuff. That means both contributers and editors. Knowing the editors rules for mad pages I can respect them. The same way Krosp respects large bodies of water. The point is I am not who you will be needing to clean up after. It takes a while to learn and grasp rules. When one rule blocks you, then you have to invent a way around that. Zarchne found the need for this. I found the same need. So have and will countless other newbies. They will run into the need to get around the rules before they will discover the rules the editors have set for Mad pages. :::: I want to get my ideas down in the least restrictive page. Then if they are needed for some more structured purpose I will copy and paste them into new order. The unhappiness I have with the Mad rules is that it solidifies things too early. Once a theory is in its section, can you edit it? Can you change its point and thrust? No. Because others have signed on to the words that are there. You have no ethical right to change the words out from under them. So I want to stay away from that situation. I want to contribute where revision is unhampered. :::: I would rather not see editors burden themselves with an IMO endless or hopeless task. It is not my task to tell you what to do. You will decide that for yourself. It did seem to me worthwhile to point out you might want to re-evaluate what you are trying to accomplish. When something is hard or difficult to achieve, it's trying to tell you something. Why are people spending a lot of time cleaning up Mad pages? What is the difficulty trying to say? Why isn't it easy yet? If it were to be easy what would it be like? If you look at it fresh, what's the purpose and the benefit of the rules? --Rej ¤¤? 05:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) If it were to be easy what would it be like? Now that I have had a chance to play with templates and stuff and a chance to grow in experience I'd like to give this problem another shot. My growth has shown that there is a time when a formal theory is appropriate. It usually happens after several attempts and drafts. The drafts seem best suited to forum like pages. Try something informally. Get feedback informally, Think about it. Formulate something solid. Check it is not contradicted by present canon. Commit to it as a theory. So from a :Main page I want to be able to create a forum for mad informal speculation. Brassica is right that :Forum:Main page is probably simpler that what I first proposed. Later when enough drafts have been tried and feedback given, commit a theory to a theory page (which can be :Main page/Mad for the sake of tradition). I think preloads can be created for the forums and the theory pages. The preloads would put the appropriate policy statements on those pages, make links back to the main page, add the appropiate starter categories e.g. Category:Mad. Having preloads implies having create buttons to invoke them. The button for the forum would be on the main page. The button for the theory page would belong on the forum page. This would direct the users (even newbies) to the right sequence while giving them a proper release from the strictures of the main page. I will start fiddling with this as time and inspiration permit. Suggestions and feedback here would be welcome. --Rej ¤¤? 03:46, October 10, 2009 (UTC) Time's passed. The muses were kind. Edit Sandbox(Forum)(Mad) can be created from or just from when on any of the three linked pages. This allows for editing and creating ;Main page:Sandbox ;Forum page: Forum:Sandbox/Forum ;Theories page:Sandbox/Mad Uncreated pages are preloaded with the appropriate template for their type. All three pages will (soon) have an edit link as above so contributors can navigate between them. This will be done via preloads for new pages. Retro fitting can be left undone or done by hand. You will know if you really want to manually retrofit a link. No need unless the page is heavily used.--Rej ¤¤? 03:19, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Rethinking the name for the forum I am uncomfortable with my choice of name for the forum. The Forum:Sandbox/Forum is too complicated to explain to others. Having possibly two forum pages named after the main page is scary. So the solution is to simplify by dropping the /Forum part. So ;Forum page: Forum:Sandbox/Forum becomes just: ;Forum page: Forum:Sandbox Then the worst of the confusion can be avoided. Some may confuse the main page for the forum page when navigating. However once they arrive the difference will be obvious from the content. So I will change the template Edit mad forum template accordingly. Then all I have to do is figure out how to get the preloads to work together harmoniously. Oh yeah, and how to train the Jägers. If I figure out how to train the Jägers then training real people will be a piece of priroshki. --Rej ¤¤? 00:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC)